If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

Why would Microsoft want it to be a viable cross platform solution? They make money on Windows, not C# compilers.

Well, in my opinion the reason Microsoft looked favorably on Mono was because it offered cross platform support for C#/.NET (part of it) which is something it needs to fully compete with Java in the enterprise sector.

Comment

Interesting to see how this plays out. I personally never saw the added value of Mono, and the few programs out there using Mono are mediocre at best. I certainly won't miss Mono if it goes away, in fact I hope it and the crippled Moonlight plugin dies. Then Microsoft can either bring a real Silverlight plugin to Linux just as Adobe does with it's Flash plugin or stop selling it's technology as cross-platform.

Comment

Why would Microsoft want it to be a viable cross platform solution? They make money on Windows, not C# compilers.

Oh, they don't want it to actually be a viable cross-platform solution, but for marketing reasons it's important that it appear to be a viable cross-platform solution. That way, they can overcome the objections of prospective customers who are worried about being locked into a single vendor/platform.

Comment

Well, in my opinion the reason Microsoft looked favorably on Mono was because it offered cross platform support for C#/.NET (part of it) which is something it needs to fully compete with Java in the enterprise sector.

Yeah, that makes sense really.On the other hand, they have been trying to destroy Linux for years, first with FUD, but more recently with legal threats. Initially through their agreement with NOVELL (ironically, already belly up), and more recently attacking Android manufacturers.

Arguably, they can't support an operating system that they claim violates their IP. They are shooting themselves on the foot really.

Mono was the perfect solution for them: led by "Linux people" (even though the head of development is fascinated with Microsoft, to say the least), so they could kill the messenger at any time.

Right now, my best guess is that they'll try to sponsor Mono from the shadows, like they did via NOVELL. How about Nokia? Now they took over another company to destroy, they may as well use them for this.

Comment

I think we need to make a clear distinction between the .NET Framework(TM) and the Common Language Runtime.

1. The .NET Framework is a commercial, propriety implementation of the open CLR specification.
2. The .NET Framework includes commercial, proprietary extensions such as Windows Forms, ASP.NET, and ADO.NET.
3. The .NET Framework includes commercial, proprietary languages such as VB.NET and (I think) F#.

Saying that .NET is open source is silly at best. What's also silly is Miguel de Icaza's determination to implement said extensions. This is what opened Novell up to patent-based destruction at the hands of Microsoft.

And that Microsoft Community Promise happens to be legally binding. Microsoft themselves have released portions of their own .NET implementation under the Microsoft Public License, which has been acknowledged by the FSF as a true, open source license.